So u think high prot intake is important to build muscless!?

[Fallen_Horse]

Read my log, i'm out-sprinting the sprinters at the track. That takes muscle, which i wouldn't have if i weren't getting sufficient amounts of protein.

I'm afraid the scale is skewed way in the wrong direction on how much protein we can use/need.

Sorry to interrupt, but this sounds awfully like something Ha would say to defend his positions...

[bronco]

w/o rereading this entire thing, I think the problem is you two have two slightly different hypothesis. Yes, you have some quantifiable results Dave, but as was explained above, you cannot possibly attribute these to anything in particular. You can also not say that having an increased protein intake would not have given you greater gains, which is the hypothesis that most are interested in; does increased protein intake increase performance. What you could maybe refute with a little work, is hypothesis 2: that a low protein intake makes it impossible to make gains. I dont think that is the hypothesis that most of are interested in.

Good point.

[ninearms]

I give up. It's like trying to reason with Jehovah's Witnesses.

How is what you're saying any different?

Only difference is that i'm having quantifiable results, despite it being impossible (according to some.)

What am I saying, apart from your logic is totally flawed and circular, and you're drawing conclusions based on ignoring numerous other parts of the equation?

You say your sprint times have increased and the only way this could have happened is if you had gained muscle, therefore you must have gained muscle even though you have not actually had this measured. Your basic argument is:

a) My sprint times have increased, therefore I must have gained muscle.
b) I know I have gained muscle because my sprint times have increased.

I argue that your reasoning is faulty, and that there are numerous other factors that may have improved your sprint times (*cough*creatine*cough*). All you have to do is replace the phrase "gained muscle" with the phrase "been touched by the love of Jesus Christ" to see how ridiculous this argument is.

[puppydog]

(*cough*creatine*cough*). All you have to do is replace the phrase "gained muscle" with the phrase "been touched by the love of Jesus Christ" to see how ridiculous this argument is.

except we've all been touched by the love of jesus christ, and that is a fact, and it's in the bible.

[Fallen_Horse]

Quite frankly if you want to know what kind of protein to take in for muscle building, look at large vegan lifters. Ask them what they take in. Ask daveman, ask Robert Cheeke, ask others. I bet they are hitting 1g/kg or more per day.

Now, I just ran a poll a few days ago on VBB and most of the members there get between 15-25% of their calories in protein. So for a person with 100kg LBM, getting, say, 3000 Calories a day, that's 450 to 750 cals from protein, or 112 to 187 grams of protein. That works out to 1.1g/kg and 1.8g/kg, respectively. On a 3500 or 4000 cal diet, you would get even more protein.

Take in what you will, but I am still going to shoot for 1g/kg every day...

[Dave Noisy]

I give up. It's like trying to reason with Jehovah's Witnesses.

How is what you're saying any different?

Only difference is that i'm having quantifiable results, despite it being impossible (according to some.)

What am I saying, apart from your logic is totally flawed and circular, and you're drawing conclusions based on ignoring numerous other parts of the equation?

You say your sprint times have increased and the only way this could have happened is if you had gained muscle, therefore you must have gained muscle even though you have not actually had this measured. Your basic argument is:

a) My sprint times have increased, therefore I must have gained muscle.
b) I know I have gained muscle because my sprint times have increased.

I argue that your reasoning is faulty, and that there are numerous other factors that may have improved your sprint times (*cough*creatine*cough*). All you have to do is replace the phrase "gained muscle" with the phrase "been touched by the love of Jesus Christ" to see how ridiculous this argument is.

Why are you getting so upset? It makes no sense.

The problem here is that you're not trying to understand what i'm saying, and arguing against statements which i don't believe i've made.

Firstly - my sprints were improving BEFORE i started taking creatine. Cough.

Secondly - how can my sprint times and power be improving (or, if you prefer, have improved) if there wasn't some kind of gain in muscle?

Sprints are not dependent on the aerobic energy system. A 100m track (foot) sprinter is not doing that effort on aerobic power.

If i wasn't getting enough protein - which is what is really what this is about -- should i not be FAILING?

I'm very confident that it isn't biomechanics, and little else had changed. I'd been eating lower-protein since late fall. It's due to training which has resulted in GAINED MUSCLE.

Where is the fault in the logic that to make gains as suggested by many one here, one needs more than 0.5g/kg of protein? I've been told by some that the amount of protein i'm eating is completely insufficient. While places like the World Health Organization concur, i'm the one being personally insulted, and disrespected despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. (ie, studies showing that muscle gain are impossible at protein levels that i'm speaking of.)

So tell me: what's wrong?

[Zack]

http://www.myspace.com/veganlifeandfitness look at this guy. He's got muscles on a fruitarian diet

He did NOT build that muscle on a raw food diet. He built himself up with heavy cooked vegan foods, oils, everything....

He is just not honest about it.

[puppydog]

I give up. It's like trying to reason with Jehovah's Witnesses.

How is what you're saying any different?

Only difference is that i'm having quantifiable results, despite it being impossible (according to some.)

What am I saying, apart from your logic is totally flawed and circular, and you're drawing conclusions based on ignoring numerous other parts of the equation?

You say your sprint times have increased and the only way this could have happened is if you had gained muscle, therefore you must have gained muscle even though you have not actually had this measured. Your basic argument is:

a) My sprint times have increased, therefore I must have gained muscle.
b) I know I have gained muscle because my sprint times have increased.

I argue that your reasoning is faulty, and that there are numerous other factors that may have improved your sprint times (*cough*creatine*cough*). All you have to do is replace the phrase "gained muscle" with the phrase "been touched by the love of Jesus Christ" to see how ridiculous this argument is.

Why are you getting so upset? It makes no sense.

The problem here is that you're not trying to understand what i'm saying, and arguing against statements which i don't believe i've made.

Firstly - my sprints were improving BEFORE i started taking creatine. Cough.

Secondly - how can my sprint times and power be improving (or, if you prefer, have improved) if there wasn't some kind of gain in muscle?

Sprints are not dependent on the aerobic energy system. A 100m track (foot) sprinter is not doing that effort on aerobic power.

If i wasn't getting enough protein - which is what is really what this is about -- should i not be FAILING?

I'm very confident that it isn't biomechanics, and little else had changed. I'd been eating lower-protein since late fall. It's due to training which has resulted in GAINED MUSCLE.

Where is the fault in the logic that to make gains as suggested by many one here, one needs more than 0.5g/kg of protein? I've been told by some that the amount of protein i'm eating is completely insufficient. While places like the World Health Organization concur, i'm the one being personally insulted, and disrespected despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. (ie, studies showing that muscle gain are impossible at protein levels that i'm speaking of.)

So tell me: what's wrong?

I have no research to say you can or can't gain muscle based on 0.5g/kg of protein in your diet, or that you in particular haven't.

But it is entirely likely that your sprint times have improved because your more efficient at using the muscles you have. Explosive strength work like sprinting has a great impact on your nervous system. So instead of being able to utilize 60% of your muscle, maybe through practice and 're-wiring' you can now use 70% of those same muscles. (These % figures are completely arbirtary for argument sake.)

Also, virtually all activity is reliant to some degree on each of the 3 energy systems, incuding aeobic. So gains in that area should also make you better at sprinting.

At the end of the day, who cares? Your sprint times are improving, which is good. Your bodyweight is the same, so you probably haven't made huge gains in muscle. But your sprints are improving so you are likely stronger and more efficient. It's hard to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time.

I think most people would be as happy with "I'm 15% stronger" as they would with "I've got more muscle which lets me do 15% more" - the end result for you is the same.

Without some expensive testing or other quantifiable data about your body composition, we'll never know.

[ninearms]

But it is entirely likely that your sprint times have improved because your more efficient at using the muscles you have. Explosive strength work like sprinting has a great impact on your nervous system. So instead of being able to utilize 60% of your muscle, maybe through practice and 're-wiring' you can now use 70% of those same muscles. (These % figures are completely arbirtary for argument sake.).

Bingo!

How did Pyrros Dimas put 20kg on his total between the 1992 and 1996 Olympics whilst remaining at the same bodyweight? Improved motor efficiency, i.e he became a better weightlifter, able to apply more force to the platform and bar by utilising more muscle fibres and developing more efficient movement patterns.

[puppydog]

How did Pyrros Dimas put 20kg on his total between the 1992 and 1996 Olympics whilst remaining at the same bodyweight?

touched by jesus.

[ninearms]

Jesus touches us all, so it can't be that.

[Dave Noisy]

But it is entirely likely that your sprint times have improved because your more efficient at using the muscles you have. Explosive strength work like sprinting has a great impact on your nervous system. So instead of being able to utilize 60% of your muscle, maybe through practice and 're-wiring' you can now use 70% of those same muscles. (These % figures are completely arbirtary for argument sake.).

This could be the answer. I sense growth as well (haven't taken measurements, don't have a solid 'before' anyway), but perhaps i'm utilizing a higher percentage of muscle-fibres. I thought i just read somewhere that this doesn't ever really change all that much, but maybe i'm wrong.

[J]

I don't supplement protein at all. And I am very well muscled. I believe athletes can get enough protein from a normal, healthy, whole food diet. I think Dave Noisy and I are in agreement with this. I am still gaining muscle, as I get back to my old fitness. Whole foods seem to work for me !

You got it! I'm actually trying to keep it down around 30g/day for me (0.5g/kg of lean body mass), i can't of course, but it's most definitely not hurting me. I'm massacring my opponents on the track, getting much faster when they're not.

I'm 6'4" 240 and lift very heavy weights. I get about 40 grams of protein a day.

[J]

What is your sport?

Several studies have shown positive effects of higher protein intake for strength athletes. I dont know anything about endurance athletes, but for honestys sake it has to be said that Dave Noisy has not produced any other evidence apart from anecdotal and some guru advice to back up his really low protein intake experiment.

So i guess it depends how adventurous you want to be

I'm sick of explaining this over and over again. This person can just go ahead and think they have to stuff theirself full of processed soy and protein shakes. And perhaps say to hell with veganism eventually.

Quite frankly if you want to know what kind of protein to take in for muscle building, look at large vegan lifters. Ask them what they take in. Ask daveman, ask Robert Cheeke, ask others. I bet they are hitting 1g/kg or more per day.

(...dumbfounded expression on my face)
You think Robert Cheeke is a large lifter? Hate to point this out... but DaveNoisy, the cyclist, looks bigger than Robert Cheeke. He is cut though.

Deavman OTOH is large. And from hearing him talk it sounds like his protein intake is kind of low. Not that he's the final word on the subject.

[J]

http://www.myspace.com/veganlifeandfitness look at this guy. He's got muscles on a fruitarian diet

He did NOT build that muscle on a raw food diet. He built himself up with heavy cooked vegan foods, oils, everything....

He is just not honest about it.

Yeah that's bigbwi. Used to post here. Can't imagine why he left. He has one of the best strength to bodyweight ratios of any vegan. Deavman is I think a little better. Perhaps veganjosh. Maybe one or two others are in the same ballpark.

Thanks in part to bigbwi I was inspired to try a very high fruit/low protein diet. My strength to body weight ratio got the highest it's ever been. I got to a set of 30 chinups at a bodyweight of 220. I wasn't even getting 30 grams of protein a day at the time.

The argument you use here BTW, could be used to dismiss almost all vegan strength trainers. I for example, ate meat the first 30 years of my life. So my size and strength can (and is) dismissed as the result of those first 30 years of omni eating by most.